Are there anymore Japanese sports cars in the US?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Ain't forums grand?

"Sports car" is a term that's been so bastardized and adjusted for the needs of whomever over time that it's essentially lost its meaning. Read this recent R&T article for some context.

So let's go with good ol' Merriam Webster, shall we?:

"a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving"

Now before anyone says "Ah-ha! 'High-speed driving'! That means it has to be powerful!": you're wrong. That means high speeds for conditions. In other words, ya don't need 400 horsepower to go around a hairpin or S-bend fast. Keep in mind that the second requirement is "easy maneuverability".


Finally, the following are NOT sports cars:
- Subaru WRX/STI
- Any Civic
- Any Mitsubishi
- Nissan GTR
- Any VW Golf/GTI, ever
- Any Lexus (excluding the LFA), ever
- Any 'muscle car' or 'pony car', ever
- Any Cadillac, ever

And there ya have it.

Well maybe this one...

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by XxMerlinxX

You think a 3rd gen TT RX-7 is a borderline grand touring car...

I don't think. By the original definitions of sports car and grand touring car, I know. I'll grant that the FD series 3 cars were incredible-handling cars for the time -- and the stripped-and-lightened R models were still sports cars. But the majority of FDs were sold as nimble GT cars - right down to the 'Touring' option designation - and were direct competitors to the 300zx, which was a GT car.

[tc328]

Originally Posted by mremg

Funny story - I just got off the phone talking to my dad, who is definitely not a car person and he told me he is thinking about getting a sports car. I asked him what cars he is looking into and he said he really liked this Volvo sports car. I was like 'Huh!? Volvo makes a sports car? What is it called?' He replied, XC90. I was like 'Dad, that's not a sports car it's an SUV!!'. He replies 'Doesn't SUV mean a ''Sports'' Utility Vehicle?'

[Mik3ymomo]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

I don't think. By the original definitions of sports car and grand touring car, I know. I'll grant that the FD series 3 cars were incredible-handling cars for the time -- and the stripped-and-lightened R models were still sports cars. But the majority of FDs were sold as nimble GT cars - right down to the 'Touring' option designation - and were direct competitors to the 300zx, which was a GT car.

The touring option was a name given to an option package that just included leather seat coverings, sunroof and an upgraded stereo. The name of that package was changed to PEP/PEG. Popular equipment package or popular equipment group.
The car is basically identical to the R1/R2 model as far as the chassis/drivetrain.
Actually the R1/R2 model isnt the lightest model. The Base model is actually lighter. Here are the weights of the US spec models. Only marginal differences.
Base model weighs 2789lbs
R1 model weighs 2800
"Touring" model 2862

If the Honda S2000 is Def a sports car and comes with leather seats I don't see there is any argument to leather appointments in the interior somehow altering the cars designation as a sports car.

I took issue with some of the assumptions made in that article. How is a Mustang a Sedan? It's a coupe if it has 2 doors and a sedan if it has 4?
He stays the Honda CRX isn't a sports car but it fits the definition you gave as being a nimble fast reacting small performance car. Those cars dominate thier class in SCCA Solo events. They are also 2 seat cars and are small and light.

No one would call the Mustang a sports car. Not anyone who understands what a sports car is.
Call it a GT, call it a Sports coupe, call it a Pony car... It's never been a sports car.

And Z cars began coming in 2+2 variants. That's when it's becomes a GT car or sports coupe. The chassis is also different from the 2 seat versions.

[doane2u]

As far as I know the Honda CRX was never a factory convertible though, right?" The closest it came to that was the Civic del Sol model, a sort of Targa looking model. so it fails as a true sports car definition, doesn't it?

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by doane2u

As far as I know the Honda CRX was never a factory convertible though, right?" The closest it came to that was the Civic del Sol model, a sort of Targa looking model. so it fails as a true sports car definition, doesn't it?

No, no, no. A sports car does not need to be a convertible or a targa. A roadster, however, does.

The CRX was originally developed not as a sports car, but as a high-efficiency car. Remember the HF model that was the fuel-efficiency champion of the day (mid-1980s)? That was Honda's primary aim with it. It just happened that the two-seat, ultralight design translated well to a sporty Si version.

The CRX's design philosophy is why the very first Honda Insight was a small two-seater (as opposed to the first Prius, which was basically a mutated Yaris), and also why the company's current CRX tribute, the CRZ, is the only manual-transmission hybrid you can buy.

As for the FD RX-7 argument: I'll acquiesce since it's definitely borderline and since previous RX-7s were definitely sports cars. The marketing of the car wasn't as a sports car, though; the 'times' dictated it go head-to-head with cars that were either sporty coupes or GTs: primarily the 300zx, the Toyota Celica/Supra, and the Mitsubishi Eclipse / 3000GT.

[Red Bread]

Marketers say all sorts of stupid shit. MB would like people to think the SL is a sports car. FD's were so different than those other cars.

[angelr]

FD rx7 was a fixed roof sports car, not a gt.